Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 true_blue Mar 09, 2005 17:59:05	I recently have had one of my players ask about playing a Knight of Solamnia. He knows most of the basics and has read all the books I have about them. Then the question came up of rank and privaledges. How exactly does rank come into factor? I mean I know seniority plays a part, but that can't be all. 1) If a Rose Knight and Crown Knight are roughly the same rank, would a Rose Knight outrank in this situation because he is a Rose Knight? 2) How exactly does a Knight know what rank another Knight is when he meets up? I mean I realize that a Lawful Good knight wouldnt lie, but I'm sure there would be some kind of badges, ribbons, or something of the rank he is associated with, maybe something like the military? I would assume that they just dont go strictly by say-so, but I can see how that could happen sometimes. 3) *I* assume that a Knight who adventures isnt really around all the other Knights a lot and the areas where they are. In this respect they don't gain "rank" really as much, even if they are say a Crown Knight 10th level. I'm not sure how official that is, but I mainly see more of the Knights who are around the areas where the Knights congregate as the ones who rise in rank. The ones who adventure are all right by the Knights standards, but dont rise in "rank" because they are usually off doing their own thing. Was wondering if that was close to the way things worked, or if its different. 4) Do you think it would be all right to have say a Sword Knight take the Sword PrC, without having levels in the Crown PrC? I mean if the guy didnt want any levels in the PrC, but wanted to be strictly a Sword Knight, do you think it would be balanced? I know he would have to be a Crown Knight first, but could he be one without taking the PrC and then picking up the Sword PrC when he was able to? I realize that in the DLCS it is written up that a to take the "higher" PrC's, they must have the "lower" ones( I dont like the wording, its just easier to say). But considering you can have a Knight of the Sword without either the Crown or Sword PrC, I'm not sure if it would be so bad having a Sword having the Sword PrC without the Crown PrC. I'm on the fence with this one, although I dont mind the requirement of the previous PrC's. Just was wondering different people's opinions. Personally I like the Knights of Solamnia a lot and actually like the fact you must be in one to advance to another, etc. Also I like the fact they just arent clear-cut divided into Fighters, Clerics, Wizards like some ppl may prefer. I think the Knights of Takhsis are nice having it that way, and even the Legion of Steel or loosely(very loosely) set up like that, I like the Solamnics set up how they are/ About the main thing I want to see is a little bit more said about the differences between the Crown and Rose orders, and examples of why people pick and stay in the Crown.
#2 Charles_Phipps Mar 09, 2005 18:12:27	I recently have had one of my players ask about playing a Knight of Solamnia. He knows most of the basics and has read all the books I have about them. Spiffy, I hope you enjoy my honor. Then the question came up of rank and privaledges. How exactly does rank come into factor? I mean I know seniority plays a part, but that can't be all. Rank is basically everything in terms of any military organization. There are fewer levels of military organization in the Knights of Solamnia but there's a clear pecking order that you will have to pay attention to. Derek, Sturm, and company all pay close attention to it. 1) If a Rose Knight and Crown Knight are roughly the same rank, would a Rose Knight outrank in this situation because he is a Rose Knight? Yep, the Rose Knight has priviledges over him. Tanis Half Elven was a Rose Knight with seniority over all the other knights and thus could command them all (save presumably the Grand Master or the Head of the Rose Knight). In Zulu, there was only a months' difference between the lieutenants and thus he had rank. 2) How exactly does a Knight know what rank another Knight is when he meets up? I mean I realize that a Lawful Good knight wouldnt lie, but I'm sure there would be some kind of badges, ribbons, or something of the rank he is associated with, maybe something like the military? I would assume that they just dont go strictly by say-so, but I can see how that could happen sometimes. Actually, I think that's how exactly how it works. I presume there's armor and rings that indicate the work, in my game...their swords are clearly differentiated but there's no chance a Knight would lie about his rank in a situation like this. 3) *I* assume that a Knight who adventures isnt really around all the other Knights a lot and the areas where they are. In this respect they don't gain "rank" really as much, even if they are say a Crown Knight 10th level. I'm not sure how official that is, but I mainly see more of the Knights who are around the areas where the Knights congregate as the ones who rise in rank. The ones who adventure are all right by the Knights standards, but dont rise in "rank" because they are usually off doing their own thing. Was wondering if that was close to the way things worked, or if its different. Actually, its debatable. Knights who are off 'adventuring' usually have a very good reason to be doing so. A Knight of the Sword in a garrison who never sees much action may be surrounded by his fellows all the town but he's less likely to be promoted than someone who brings back a Dragon Orb honestly. Acts of heroism tend to trump long periods of fidelity. 4) Do you think it would be all right to have say a Sword Knight take the Sword PrC, without having levels in the Crown PrC? I mean if the guy didnt want any levels in the PrC, but wanted to be strictly a Sword Knight, do you think it would be balanced? I know he would have to be a Crown Knight first, but could he be one without taking the PrC and then picking up the Sword PrC when he was able to? I realize that in the DLCS it is written up that a to take the "higher" PrC's, they must have the "lower" ones( I dont like the wording, its just easier to say). But considering you can have a Knight of the Sword without either the Crown or Sword PrC, I'm not sure if it would be so bad having a Sword having the Sword PrC without the Crown PrC. I'm on the fence with this one, although I dont mind the requirement of the previous PrC's. Just was wondering different people's opinions. Derek crownguard didn't have any ranks in Knight of Solamnia's prestige class and the same goes for Tanis Half-elven but they were both "true Knights." The prestige classes just represent specialized training that they might have benefited from. Personally I like the Knights of Solamnia a lot and actually like the fact you must be in one to advance to another, etc. Also I like the fact they just arent clear-cut divided into Fighters, Clerics, Wizards like some ppl may prefer. I think the Knights of Takhsis are nice having it that way, and even the Legion of Steel or loosely(very loosely) set up like that, I like the Solamnics set up how they are/ About the main thing I want to see is a little bit more said about the differences between the Crown and Rose orders, and examples of why people pick and stay in the Crown. Agreed. Largely, I have my character in the Knighthood of the Sword because being a Knight of the Sword allows him to pursue his own adventures without undo amount of questioning from high Command plus the spiritual aspects of paladin's mysteries.....yet he's not required to be "diplomatic" in a manner a Knight of the Rose is expected to be. As a Knight of the Sword another character simply had no interest in priestly training and was frankly a bit disturbed by its effect on folk.
#3 zombiegleemax Mar 09, 2005 19:51:04	With respect to the question about PrC, you might take a nod from 2nd ed. One has to go through the "lower" orders to get to the "higher" orders.
#4 cam_banks Mar 09, 2005 20:36:54	With respect to the question about PrC, you might take a nod from 2nd ed. One has to go through the "lower" orders to get to the "higher" orders. Originally this wasn't a case of rising through the ranks and then switching Orders. It's supposed to represent the fact that a Crown knight spends a short period of time as a squire, overcomes a trial and then decides whether or not he wants to commit himself to be a fully invested knight of that Order. If not, and he desires another path, he petitions for the Order of the Sword and undergoes spiritual training and overcomes further trials before deciding on whether or not to commit to the Order of the Sword. Nobles and favored sons of Solamnia had the option of petitioning for the Order of the Rose, which required leadership training and additional martial prowess before overcoming the final set of tests and being invested as a knight of the Rose. So there was no stepladder so much as there were initiate-style rankings at the base of each of the three Orders. Once this is realized in the campaign, you'll understand that it's actually OK to play a character without PrC levels and still achieve a sense of the character's investment. I highly recommend some variant of the DLCS classes if you want to properly go this route. Cheers, Cam
#5 zombiegleemax Mar 09, 2005 20:49:59	1) If a Rose Knight and Crown Knight are roughly the same rank, would a Rose Knight outrank in this situation because he is a Rose Knight? While I believe there are "ranking systems" within a Knightly Order, I do believe that there is a rank heirarchy as well. I have thrown in the titles of "Knight-Captain", "Knight-Commander" and "Knight-Lord" in as ways to designate Knights whom are in "command" of units and I think those Knights do have authority over their troops to a point. If a Rose Knight "Standard trooper" were interacting with, let's say, the Master of Order of the Sword, I think the Sword Knight outranks the Rose Knight. 2) How exactly does a Knight know what rank another Knight is when he meets up? I mean I realize that a Lawful Good knight wouldnt lie, but I'm sure there would be some kind of badges, ribbons, or something of the rank he is associated with, maybe something like the military? I would assume that they just dont go strictly by say-so, but I can see how that could happen sometimes. Heraldry and Insignia and Family Crests, and I am sure the armor and capes and stuff would all make the case for whom or what a Knight is. Similar to how a Roman Centurion would wear certain colored helmets to designate him or how Officer ranks are distinguished by others. 3) *I* assume that a Knight who adventures isnt really around all the other Knights a lot and the areas where they are. In this respect they don't gain "rank" really as much, even if they are say a Crown Knight 10th level. I'm not sure how official that is, but I mainly see more of the Knights who are around the areas where the Knights congregate as the ones who rise in rank. The ones who adventure are all right by the Knights standards, but dont rise in "rank" because they are usually off doing their own thing. Was wondering if that was close to the way things worked, or if its different. You make a good point there. I imagine when a Knight presents his "Adventures" and if they are entailed as the truth, then a Knight gains the "Political ranking" within the KNights of Solamnia as much as they have when they are. For example, I think Sturm Brightblade woudl have Knight of the Crown levels probably starting at teh very beginning of the AUTUMN'S TWILIGHT and all of his other adventures probably pushed him to, for example, a Level 4 Fighter/Level 5 Knight of the Crown[/b] by the time he arrived in Sancrist with Derek Crowngaurd. Now, he obviously had not undergone any of the 'rituals' that a Knight might be required to make. But once everything on Sancrist was complete, he would have all the "political" advantages of where a level 5 Knight of the Crown would be, even though he already had all the advantages of a Level 5 Crown Knight has as far as the Pen And Paper Game goes. 4) Do you think it would be all right to have say a Sword Knight take the Sword PrC, without having levels in the Crown PrC? I mean if the guy didnt want any levels in the PrC, but wanted to be strictly a Sword Knight, do you think it would be balanced? I know he would have to be a Crown Knight first, but could he be one without taking the PrC and then picking up the Sword PrC when he was able to? I realize that in the DLCS it is written up that a to take the "higher" PrC's, they must have the "lower" ones( I dont like the wording, its just easier to say). But considering you can have a Knight of the Sword without either the Crown or Sword PrC, I'm not sure if it would be so bad having a Sword having the Sword PrC without the Crown PrC. I'm on the fence with this one, although I dont mind the requirement of the previous PrC's. Just was wondering different people's opinions. Well, I think it is clear that a Knight of Solamnia MUST start as a Crown Knight. That is what is implied in LEGEND OF HUMA, at least back then. I can see how, for example ,a lot of Knights whom have the political clout might be able to push their son's or other favorites straight into a higher order. Again....a lot of it has to do with who you want it to go. Personally I like the Knights of Solamnia a lot and actually like the fact you must be in one to advance to another, etc. Believe me, I LOVE the Knights of Solamnia. Also I like the fact they just arent clear-cut divided into Fighters, Clerics, Wizards like some ppl may prefer. I think the Knights of Takhsis are nice having it that way, and even the Legion of Steel or loosely(very loosely) set up like that, I like the Solamnics set up how they are/ About the main thing I want to see is a little bit more said about the differences between the Crown and Rose orders, and examples of why people pick and stay in the Crown. The only thing that I have done differently and something you might want to try, is parts of the Heirarchy. FOr example, I have it where there is a Grand Master, High Warrior, High Clerists, and High Justice. Because these Titles also entail specific responsibilitys, I have it where, and my campaigns are all set Pre-Cataclysm, where specifically the Grand Master rules from Sancrist; the High Warrior rules from Vingaard Keep; the High Clerists is master of the High Cleric's Tower; and the High Justice rules the Court of Justice in Palanthus BUT does not actually control Palanthus (that is for the Lord of Palanthus, whom is not a knight). And then, there is a Master of the Order of the Rose, Master of the Order of the Sword, and Master of the Order of the Crown. Whom of course, are based in whatever keep's they hold. I think it is not only possible but likely that Knights of SOlamnia could also be drawn from the ranks of True Clerics, which is something l like to do. The Cleric woudl still be a Priest first, but could still be a knight as well, which I think is fun to throw in at times. And even if a True Cleric were not a Solamnic, I do believe and have made it clear to Knight Characters, that the words of True Clerics of Paladine, Kiri-Jolith, and Habakuk Knights must give extreme respect and honor to, which I am sure is not a problem. ANd of course to Mishakall and other gods of light. As well as a hefty respect to Reorx.
#6 true_blue Mar 10, 2005 15:30:26	hmm 1) What I mean is.. say you have 5 levels of rank(yes I realize there would be more) and say a Crown Knight, Rank 3, was around a Rose Knight, Rank 3, would the Rose "be in command" and give the Crown Knight orders. I'm not talking anything malicious, just wondering if it worked like that. Would a Rose Knight outrank because he is a Rose Knight. Or would it kind of be up in the air? 2) I realize that a Knights word is his bond, but I find it just a little hard to believe they dont have any kind of signs to distinguish rank. I think a signet ring, or even some kind of medals would solve this. I understand for the most part if two knights meet, they would trust eachother and all that. But what if a Knight came across someone who he thought was "posing" as a Knight. And he just doesnt want to take the "Knights" word that he is a captain. A signet ring or something would go a long ways to alieve(sp?) suspicion. 3) When I ask about how does a Knight who adventures gain rank, I meant more along the lines, What if one of my players plays a Knight and adventures from 1-20th level. Now the guy may do a few missions for the Knighthood, but he obviously is doing other things, like adventuring for to combat evil, etc. He isnt exactly going everywhere on at the behest of the Knighthood. I dont see where he would exactly gain rank very much because basically he is off doing his own thing. I think he would a little bit, but not as much as a Knight who hung around the Knighthood a lot and was constantly doing things at the behest of the Knighthood. 4) With the PrC's, in the DLCS it already says you need the Crown PrC to get into the Sword PrC. I realize this.. I already know it. But I was wondering people's thoughts on letting someone not have to take the PrC, considering you dont even need the Crown PrC to be a Crown, the Sword PrC to be a Sword, etc. I'm still going to keep where you have to have the previous PrC(s) before you can go onto the next one, just was wondring people's opinions. Personally I enjoy the fact you have to be in one to go onto the next one. I just would like to see more things to distinguish the orders.
#7 Charles_Phipps Mar 10, 2005 15:45:59	1) What I mean is.. say you have 5 levels of rank(yes I realize there would be more) and say a Crown Knight, Rank 3, was around a Rose Knight, Rank 3, would the Rose "be in command" and give the Crown Knight orders. I'm not talking anything malicious, just wondering if it worked like that. Would a Rose Knight outrank because he is a Rose Knight. Or would it kind of be up in the air? I'm saying yes. A new Rose knight is going to outrank a Solamnic just like a Lieutenant is going to outrank a Sergeant Major even if the Sergeant Major has 20 years experience while the Lieutenant is out of school. It's taught in every military that *I* know to respect the Sergeant major though over you :-) Something similiar was in the Alamo movie. 2) I realize that a Knights word is his bond, but I find it just a little hard to believe they dont have any kind of signs to distinguish rank. I think a signet ring, or even some kind of medals would solve this. I understand for the most part if two knights meet, they would trust eachother and all that. But what if a Knight came across someone who he thought was "posing" as a Knight. And he just doesnt want to take the "Knights" word that he is a captain. A signet ring or something would go a long ways to alieve(sp?) suspicion. A Knights Armor and the Sword should actually distinguish things more than anything but there presumably will be also rings of office and other gifts, a Knight's sword and armor should bear the insignia of a knight. Like a Jedi's lightsaber, they're distinct and the Armor and Sword while capable of being stolen is recognizable that most knights will be able to tell a Knight by sight. 3) When I ask about how does a Knight who adventures gain rank, I meant more along the lines, What if one of my players plays a Knight and adventures from 1-20th level. Now the guy may do a few missions for the Knighthood, but he obviously is doing other things, like adventuring for to combat evil, etc. He isnt exactly going everywhere on at the behest of the Knighthood. I dont see where he would exactly gain rank very much because basically he is off doing his own thing. I think he would a little bit, but not as much as a Knight who hung around the Knighthood a lot and was constantly doing things at the behest of the Knighthood. Again True Blue, glory comes not because of devoted service but because of opportunity. You could serve the Knighthood faithfully for 20 years and never make a mistake and you're still going to see some dumbass kid or outsider like Tanis Half-Elven promoted over you because he just happens to fight the Queen of Darkness. You might cite a knight for dereliction of duty, ignoring orders, or any 'offenses' but if the knighthood approves of his actions and travels then EVERY SINGLE ACTION he does is at the behest of the knighthood. A solamnic knight is never 'off duty', his every deed is presumed to be a reflection of the Order. Thus if you kill the King of the Minotaurs, the Solamnic Knighthood not "John Q. Solamnic" killed the Minotaur King. 4) With the PrC's, in the DLCS it already says you need the Crown PrC to get into the Sword PrC. I realize this.. I already know it. But I was wondering people's thoughts on letting someone not have to take the PrC, considering you dont even need the Crown PrC to be a Crown, the Sword PrC to be a Sword, etc. I'm still going to keep where you have to have the previous PrC(s) before you can go onto the next one, just was wondring people's opinions. Personally I enjoy the fact you have to be in one to go onto the next one. I just would like to see more things to distinguish the orders. Largely, the problem is the prestige classes are built on on top of one another. I'm happy to let equivalent requirements be met though to be a member of the order...in other words, Paladin or similiar level for taking the prestige class
#8 true_blue Mar 10, 2005 16:00:40	Well I'll disagree on some points. A Knights Armor and Sword wont keep changing each time the guy advances in rank. I dont think he will get something redone each time. I thinka signet ring would work best for situations like this. Also medals that can be applid to ones armor maybe, and subsequently taken away also. A Captain who roams around probably wont have a "Captain Sword". He will have some signet ring that will have the rank printed on it or some such device. Also, I realize that Tanis was given an "honorary knighthood" for his role in the War of the Lance and thats all good. But I see that as something that is very rare and doesnt occur all the time. I dont foresee a Knight going to the Knighthood "I defeated an Ogre Titan who was threatening people" and the Knighthood goes "Well you just advanced two more ranks!" Its more on the lines, the more the Knight does for the Knighthood, the more the Knighthood does for the Knight. If you are off adventuring on your own, with barely any contact with the Knighthood or very little, I dont foresee a Knight raising very fast rank wise... no matter how much good he does.
#9 Charles_Phipps Mar 10, 2005 16:25:17	Well I'll disagree on some points. As is your perogitive. A Knights Armor and Sword wont keep changing each time the guy advances in rank. I dont think he will get something redone each time. I thinka signet ring would work best for situations like this. Also medals that can be applid to ones armor maybe, and subsequently taken away also. A Captain who roams around probably wont have a "Captain Sword". He will have some signet ring that will have the rank printed on it or some such device. On this end, I'd disagree. Unless a Sword has a special significance to the Knight or his company, the weapon should be changed with the promotion (something that's a big thing). While I'm sure medals can be awarded, I don't think there's a way to apply them to armor....though maybe there's a form of ceremonial armor. I'm not disagreeing about the ring though. I'm just saying that armor costs a SHAVIT load of money in Medieval societies (especially one where steel is a form of currency). The fact a warrior wields a Knight's Sword and Armor should be proof on one end that you are a knight. Also, I realize that Tanis was given an "honorary knighthood" for his role in the War of the Lance and thats all good. But I see that as something that is very rare and doesnt occur all the time. No, Tanis wasn't even a Solamnic. Only the fact he killed the Emperor of Ansalom and defeated the Dark Queen was what made him a hero. However, Sturm Brightblade's legend will include his adventures with Tanis and company. Furthermore, Huma Dragonbane wasn't with the Knighthood when he recovered the Dragonlances. Yet, the Knighthood certainly takes credit for that, I dont foresee a Knight going to the Knighthood "I defeated an Ogre Titan who was threatening people" and the Knighthood goes "Well you just advanced two more ranks!" Its more on the lines, the more the Knight does for the Knighthood, the more the Knighthood does for the Knight. If you are off adventuring on your own, with barely any contact with the Knighthood or very little, I dont foresee a Knight raising very fast rank wise... no matter how much good he does. On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm thinking the Knighthood works. I assume we're talking about Knights who aren't ignoring orders and are given permission to wander for some reason (or respect to their judgement of their missions). A Knight who has passed his orders is a knight who is now and for the rest of his life a champion of the Three Gods and Solamnia. Like the Knights of the Round Table, it doesn't fall to King Arthur to order them around. They do on their own spare time whatever good they can accomplish. The idea of Arete or greatness, comes from doing great deeds. Of course, this may be a stylistic conflict between us. The average PC in my game slays goblins by the hundreds and crushes dragons, armies, evil warlords, and the like without a second's hesitation. When a PC walks into a room of Knights, there might be a Rose knight who outranks him but the majority should be plizzing in their armor. Accolades should be showered on them because only the Heroes of the lance and a few legendary figures will probably equal them in deeds. On a like note, who says you'll have barely any contact with any other Knights. If you're in Solamnia you're probably going to have trouble not tripping over any and plenty of others will be elsewise across the continent on various forms of business. One might even question whether or not they're are chapterhouses of the Knights throughout Ansalom. The PCs aren't knight errants largely but respected members of the orders purusing their objectives with their party for a reason.
#10 wolf72 Mar 10, 2005 17:03:28	LT v. SGM ... very good example. the problem that veteran Crown Knight will have to face is that s/he will have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that s/he was right ... even then I could see the Crown Knight getting some sort of disciplinary action (even if it is only for show)
#11 zombiegleemax Mar 10, 2005 20:47:34	On this end, I'd disagree. Unless a Sword has a special significance to the Knight or his company, the weapon should be changed with the promotion (something that's a big thing). While I'm sure medals can be awarded, I don't think there's a way to apply them to armor....though maybe there's a form of ceremonial armor. I'm not disagreeing about the ring though. Swords, unless magically enhanced, don't generally last as long as armour does, so I agree with you that they should be replaced. Maybe the scabbards could be adjusted by a Knighthood blacksmith to show the newly attained rank. In that same vein, armour (unless completely covered in scrollwork, which is very unlikely) could be decorated by a (Knighthood subsidised?) blacksmith to show rank. And I really like the idea of a signet ring. It would help when sending letters to have them sealed in wax with the insignia of your rank so the reciever knows how important is is ("bah, it's only a Crown Knight, i'll read it next week") :P
#12 zombiegleemax Mar 11, 2005 10:49:36	Well, from what I understood, when you became a Crown Knight, you got a crown put towards the top of your breastplate. If you advanced to Sword, you got a sword on the bottom, and then when you became a Rose Knight, you got a rose next to the sword. If you were high ranking, you got a Kingfisher put on. Sturm was wearing his father's armor, which had all 4 symbols, since he was a high-ranking Rose Knight. Signat rings seems to me more like a family thing than a rank thing. Of course, since most Knights seem to know each others families, they would know at least how good your family was, how noble, etc.
#13 true_blue Mar 11, 2005 11:34:39	I guess I look at it more as a military thing. Yes while knights may know other knights "worth", not every knight will know when another one raises in rank. A person in Sancrist may not know that the Knight in Palanthus(or some other place) got promoted, even if the Knighthood sanctioned it. Not every Knight will instantly know when another one raises in rank. I just think something like a signet ring with rank on it sounds pretty reasonable, or even medals that can be applied to ones armor. Of course whatever Order you are in is going to be shown predomintely accross your equipment. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about individual rank within the Orders. And as I said, I wouldnt allow one of my players to just go to a Knighthood "base" somewhere and be like "Uh I killed an Ogre chieften" and the Knighthood goes "Here's more rank!". Bringing up Tanis as an example I dont think is vald, considering he wasnt even a Knight and what he did went beyond "just fighting evil". Hey thats neat he was given an honorary knighthood, yay for him. But a knight who does go off on his own and adventure I dont foresee gaining rank just because he happened to be fighting evil. I'm not saying he wont gain *any* rank, just not so so much.
#14 Charles_Phipps Mar 11, 2005 11:52:03	I understand your arguement True Blue but I am actually trying to question what exactly WILL a Knight get promoted for in your opinion? What do Knights do in your conception? Mine is they largely command garrisons and negotiate settlements. Maybe investigate stuff that the people of Solamnia send a request for them to investigate. In other words, not exactly all that glorious stuff. A adventurer is a knight SEEKING danger and evil to destroy. Significantly more proactive in my mind and thus more interesting.
#15 zombiegleemax Mar 11, 2005 18:13:01	Jacen- That's how I understood it too. So I am right there with you. Plus other things could be chisled into the armor, or attached to it w/o destroying the integrity of the suit.
#16 ferratus Mar 11, 2005 18:33:44	Well there will always be tension between duty and heroic adventuring, after all the knights have a long tradition of chivalry, heroics and people to sings deeds for both. However, there are outlets for this. Namely, the Trials of Valour - Before becoming a Knight of the Rose or a Knight of the Sword you are expected to quest as a knight errant. Essentially, you are charged with travelling a certain distance on pilgrimage and/or accomplishing a certain task. This essentially allows the knights of that order to "take your measure." (pardon the pun). However, pointless heroics that cost people lives, show a clear dereliction of duty, interfere with proper military deployment, or are just plain stupid would lead to demotion or expulsion. Doing your duty heroically, and going beyond it, will get you greater status and rank. Like modern militaries it is a meritocracy, though of course feudal notions of familial birth and the money you can scrape together play a role as well. The recognition of rank isn't extremely problematic given these factors: 1) The numbers of knights will never be more than a few hundred. In such a group, accomplishments can spread by word of mouth more easily than you think. 2) Knights (ideally) don't criss-cross Ansalon, but have specific duties to attend to which keeps them rooted in a local command structure. 3) Knights generally have families and lands from which they derive their power. 4) Tabards, standards, signet rings, and so forth serve as identifying marks. These might be less appearant if the enemy has wizards or crack crossbowmen.
#17 zombiegleemax Mar 11, 2005 21:30:28	On the subject of hereditary armor and weaponry, well, I think the book is quite clear on that. While a wealthy knight concievably could have armor for each son of his, I think there is something to a Knight "passing on his sword" to his son, which probably quite an honor. I like to believe that a sword, if forged well, if wielded honorably and nobely by a KNight, will "pick up" things, such as bonuses and stuff